idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the' ) == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4291, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4007, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4007, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2003-06-25) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 14, 2014) is 3723 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Updates: RFC 4007, RFC 4291 (if approved) February 14, 2014 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: August 18, 2014 8 IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes 9 draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-03.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 1. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291) 49 RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value 50 used to limit the scope of the multicast group." scop 3 is defined as 51 "reserved" in RFC 4291. The multicast protocol specification in 52 draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires 53 to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to 54 a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value 55 is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local 56 but is also automatically determined by the network architecture. 58 The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291: 60 +------+--------------------------+ 61 | scop | NAME | 62 +------+--------------------------+ 63 | 0 | reserved | 64 | 1 | Interface | 65 | 2 | Link-Local scope | 66 | 3 | Realm-Local scope | 67 | 4 | Admin-Local scope | 68 | 5 | Site-Local scope | 69 | 6 | (unassigned) | 70 | 7 | (unassigned) | 71 | 8 | Organization-Local scope | 72 | 9 | (unassigned) | 73 | A | (unassigned) | 74 | B | (unassigned) | 75 | C | (unassigned) | 76 | D | (unassigned) | 77 | E | Global scope | 78 | F | reserved | 79 +------+--------------------------+ 81 The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291: 83 OLD: 85 Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be 86 administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived 87 from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related 88 configuration. 90 NEW: 92 Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope 93 boundaries are automatically derived from physical 94 connectivity or other, non-multicast related configuration. 95 Global scope has no boundary. The boundaries of all other 96 non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are 97 administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way 98 of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the 99 semantics of the scope is defined. 101 According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local 102 scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the 103 zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically, 104 while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually, 105 care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes 106 to ensure that inclusion contraint is met. 108 2. Definition of Realm-Local scopes 110 The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network 111 technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope 112 definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo" 113 RFC. 115 Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be 116 listed in the IANA "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry. 118 Section 4 gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE 802.15.4 119 [IEEE802.15.4] networks. 121 3. Definition of automatic and administratively configured scopes 122 (updates RFC 4007) 124 Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree 125 about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve 126 that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of 127 RFC 4007 as follows: 129 OLD: 131 o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local, 132 link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network 133 administrators. 135 NEW: 137 o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6 138 addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by this document. 140 4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 142 When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to 143 include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. 145 5. IANA Considerations 147 IANA is asked to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast 148 Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 149 Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The new registry is to be 150 populated with the scope values given in section 1. New definitions 151 for scop values will be made with "IETF Review" policy. The registry 152 will have a note associated with scope 3 listing all RFCs that define 153 Realm-Local scoping rules that use scope 3. 155 6. Acknowledgments 157 Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler and Stig Venaas 158 all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates to RFC 159 4007 and RFC 4291 are correct 161 7. Security Considerations 163 This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4007 164 [RFC4007] and RFC 4291 [RFC4291]. 166 8. References 168 8.1. Normative References 170 [RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and 171 B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, 172 March 2005. 174 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 175 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 177 8.2. Informative References 179 [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] 180 Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power 181 and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle- 182 mcast-06 (work in progress), January 2014. 184 [IEEE802.15.4] 185 IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006, "IEEE Standard for Information 186 technology - Telecommunications and information exchange 187 between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - 188 Specific requirements; Part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access 189 Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for 190 Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October 191 2006. 193 Author's Address 195 Ralph Droms 196 Cisco 197 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 198 Boxborough, MA 01719 199 US 201 Phone: +1 978 936 1674 202 Email: rdroms@cisco.com